Published Nov 22, 2013
rengel
1 Post
Nursing Diagnosis: Risk for impaired wound healing related to decreased tissue perforation.
Anyone have any Nursing intervention help?
Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN
20,908 Posts
Welcome to AN! The largest online nursing community!
Your thread was moved to nursing student assistance for best response.
We are happy to help but we need your input first. What semester are you?
nurseprnRN, BSN, RN
1 Article; 5,116 Posts
That would be "perfusion," not "perforation." I assume that there is actually decreased perfusion, though you give no data related to it. Alas, though, there is no such nursing diagnosis as "Risk for impaired wound healing" related to anything.
See, you can't make this up as you go along. All approved nursing diagnoses are evidence-based, have specific defining characteristics without which you cannot make the diagnosis, and are not subsets of medical diagnoses. The only source for the current list of approved nursing diagnoses is the NANDA-I 2012-2014. Your faculty knows this.
There is no magic list of medical diagnoses from which you can derive nursing diagnoses. There is no one from column A, one from column B list out there. Nursing diagnosis does NOT result from medical diagnosis, period. This is one of the most difficult concepts for some nursing students to incorporate into their understanding of what nursing is, which is why I strive to think of multiple ways to say it. Yes, nursing is legally obligated to implement some aspects of the medical plan of care. (Other disciplines may implement other parts, like radiology, or therapy, or ...) That is not to say that everything nursing assesses, is, and does is part of the medical plan of care. It is not. That's where nursing dx comes in.
A nursing diagnosis statement translated into regular English goes something like this: "I think my patient has ____(nursing diagnosis)_____ . I know this because I see/assessed/found in the chart (as evidenced by) __(defining characteristics) ________________. He has this because he has ___(related factor(s))__."
"Related to" means "caused by," not something else. In many nursing diagnoses it is perfectly acceptable to use a medical diagnosis as a causative factor. For example, "acute pain" includes as related factors "Injury agents: e.g. (which means, "for example") biological, chemical, physical, psychological." "Surgery" counts for a physical injury-- after all, it's only expensive trauma. :)
To make a nursing diagnosis, you must be able to demonstrate at least one "defining characteristic" and related (causative) factor. (Exceptions: "Risk for..." diagnoses do not have defining characteristics, they have risk factors.) Defining characteristics and related factors for all approved nursing diagnoses are found in the NANDA-I 2012-2014 (current edition). $29 paperback, $23 for your Kindle or iPad at Amazon, free 2-day delivery for students. NEVER make an error about this again---and, as a bonus, be able to defend appropriate use of medical diagnoses as related factors to your faculty. Won't they be surprised!
I know that many people (and even some faculty, who should know better) think that a "care plan handbook" will take the place of this book. However, all nursing diagnoses, to be valid, must come from NANDA-I. The care plan books use them, but because NANDA-I understandably doesn't want to give blanket reprint permission to everybody who writes a care plan handbook, the info in the handbooks is incomplete. We see the results here all the time from students who are not clear on what criteria make for a valid defining characteristic and what make for a valid cause.Yes, we have to know a lot about medical diagnoses and physiology, you betcha we do. But we also need to know about NURSING, which is not subservient or of lesser importance, and is what you are in school for.
If you do not have the NANDA-I 2012-2014, you are cheating yourself out of the best reference for this you could have. I don't care if your faculty forgot to put it on the reading list. Get it now. When you get it out of the box, first put little sticky tabs on the sections:
1, health promotion (teaching, immunization....)
2, nutrition (ingestion, metabolism, hydration....)
3, elimination and exchange (this is where you'll find bowel, bladder, renal, pulmonary...)
4, activity and rest (sleep, activity/exercise, cardiovascular and pulmonary tolerance, self-care and neglect...)
5, perception and cognition (attention, orientation, cognition, communication...)
6, self-perception (hopelessness, loneliness, self-esteem, body image...)
7, role (family relationships, parenting, social interaction...)
8, sexuality (dysfunction, ineffective pattern, reproduction, childbearing process, maternal-fetal dyad...)
9, coping and stress (post-trauma responses, coping responses, anxiety, denial, grief, powerlessness, sorrow...)
10, life principles (hope, spiritual, decisional conflict, nonadherence...)
11, safety (this is where you'll find your wound stuff, shock, infection, tissue integrity, dry eye, positioning injury, SIDS, trauma, violence, self mutilization...)
12, comfort (physical, environmental, social...)
13, growth and development (disproportionate, delayed...)
Now, if you are ever again tempted to make a diagnosis first and cram facts into it second, at least go to the section where you think your diagnosis may lie and look at the table of contents at the beginning of it. Something look tempting? Look it up and see if the defining characteristics match your assessment findings. If so... there's a match. If not... keep looking. Eventually you will find it easier to do it the other way round, but this is as good a way as any to start getting familiar with THE reference for the professional nurse.
I hope this gives you a better idea of how to formulate a nursing diagnosis using the only real reference that works for this. So now let's look at some possibilities that you can diagnose. I'm thinking impaired skin integrity, risk for impaired skin integrity, impaired tissue integrity for starters. You will have to look at the defining characteristics for each of these to see which applies to YOUR patient, because, as we already know, nursing diagnosis depends on an assessment just like medical diagnosis depends on an assessment. So. What does your patient look like? What do you know about her?
Now, we're going to look at where to go for outcomes and interventions. I think you can probably imagine what you might want to see for an outcome. It would probably have something to do with no increase in pain due to decreased circulation, or perhaps no increase in tissue injury, you might also consider some of the educational components, so one of your outcomes might be that the patient describes..., so you understand that he knows more about his disease.
I'm going to recommend two more books to you that will save your bacon all the way through nursing school, starting now. The first is NANDA, NOC, and NIC Linkages: Nursing Diagnoses, Outcomes, and Interventions. This is a wonderful synopsis of major nursing interventions, suggested interventions, and optional interventions related to nursing diagnoses. For example, on page 475, you will find "tissue perfusion, peripheral, ineffective." This is followed by the lay definition of what circulation status is, major interventions for arterial insufficiency and venous insufficiency, and a long list of suggested and optional interventions from which to choose. It is important to realize that you cannot just copy all of them down; you have to pick the ones that apply to your individual patient. Also available at Amazon.
The 2nd book is Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) is in its 6th edition, 2013, edited by Bulechek, Butcher, Dochterman, and Wagner. Mine came from Amazon. It gives a really good explanation of why the interventions are based on evidence, and every intervention is clearly defined and includes references if you would like to know (or if you need to give) the basis for the nursing (as opposed to medical) interventions you may prescribe. Another beauty of a reference. Don't think you have to think it all up yourself-- stand on the shoulders of giants.